A general combined model to describe tree-diameter distributions within subtropical and temperate forest communities

Oikos

Volumn 122, Issue 11, 2013, Pages 1636-1642

  Lai, Jiangshan ^a   Coomes, David A ^b   Du, Xiaojun ^a   Hsieh, Chang fu ^c   Sun, I Fang ^d   Chao, Wei Chun ^e   Mi, Xiangcheng ^a   Ren, Haibao ^a   Wang, Xugao ^f   Hao, Zhanqing ^f   Ma, Keping ^a  

^a INSTITUTE OF BOTANY   (China)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

^c NATIONAL TAIWAN UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

^d NATIONAL DONG HWA UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

^e NATIONAL CHIAYI UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

^f INSTITUTE OF GEOLOGY AND GEOPHYSICS   (China)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ASYMMETRIC COMPETITION; DATA ACQUISITION; LATITUDINAL GRADIENT; SIZE DISTRIBUTION; STAND STRUCTURE; TEMPERATE FOREST; TREE;

EID: 84886279121     PISSN: 00301299     EISSN: 16000706     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0706.2013.00436.x     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Adler F. R. 1996. A model of self-thinning through local com petition. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 93: 9980-9984.
2. Anfodillo T. et al. 2013. An allometry-based approach for understanding forest structure, predicting tree-size distribution and assessing the degree of disturbance. Proc. R. Soc. B 280 1751 20122375.
3. Bailey R. L. and Dell T. R. 1973. Quantifying diameter distri butions with Weibull function. For. Sci. 19: 97-104.
4. Batista W. B. and Platt W. J. 2003. Tree population responses to hurricane disturbance: syndromes in a southeastern USA old-growth forest. J. Ecol. 91: 197-212.
5. Begon M. B. et al. 1996. Ecology: individuals, populations and communities. - Blackwell.
6. Bokma F. 2004. Evidence against universal metabolic allometry. Funct. Ecol. 18: 184-187.
7. Brown J. H. et al. 2004. Toward a metabolic theory of ecology. Ecology 85: 1771-1789.
8. Bullock B. P. and Burkhart H. E. 2005. Juvenile diameter distributions of loblolly pine characterized by the two-parameter Weibull function. New For. 29: 233-244.
9. Calder W. A. 1984. Size, function and life history. - Harvard Univ. Press.
10. Cao Q. V. 2004. Predicting parameters of a Weibull function for modelling diameter distribution. For. Sci. 50: 682-685.
11. Clauset A. et al. 2009. Power-law distributions in empirical data. Siam Rev. 51: 661-703.
12. Condit R. 1998. Tropical forest census plots: methods and results from Barro Colorado Island, Panama and comparison with other plots. - Springer.
13. Condit R. et al. 1998. Predicting population trends from size distributions: a direct test in a tropical tree community. Am. Nat. 152: 495-509.
14. Coomes D. A. 2006. Challenges to the generality of WBE theory. Trends Ecol. Evol. 21: 593-596.
15. Coomes D. A. and Allen R. B. 2007. Mortality and tree- size distributions in natural mixed-age forests. J. Ecol. 95: 27-40.
16. Coomes D. A. and Allen R. B. 2009. Testing the metabolic scaling theory of tree growth. J. Ecol. 97: 1369-1373.
17. Coomes D. A. et al. 2003. Disturbances prevent stem size-density distributions in natural forests from following scaling relationships. Ecol. Lett. 6: 980-989.
18. Coomes D. A. et al. 2011. Moving on from metabolic scaling theory: hierarchical models of tree growth and asymmetric competition for light. J. Ecol. 99: 748-756.
19. Coomes D. A. et al. 2012. A general integrative framework for modelling woody biomass production and carbon sequestration rates in forests. J. Ecol. 100: 42-64.
20. Davies S. J. 2001. Tree mortality and growth in 11 sympatric Macaranga species in Borneo. Ecology 82: 920-932.
21. Deng J. et al. 2012. Insights into plant size-density relationships from models and agricultural crops. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109: 8600-8605.
22. Economo E. P. et al. 2005. Allometric growth, life-history invariants and population energetics. Ecol. Lett. 8: 353-360.
23. Enquist B. J. and Niklas K. J. 2001. Invariant scaling relations across tree-dominated communities. Nature 410: 655-660.
24. Enquist B. J. et al. 1998. Allometric scaling of plant energetics and population density. Nature 395: 163-165.
25. Enquist B. J. et al. 1999. Allometric scaling of production and life-history variation in vascular plants. Nature 401: 907-911.
26. Enquist B. J. et al. 2009. Extensions and evaluations of a general quantitative theory of forest structure and dynamics. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106: 7046-7051.
27. Franklin J. F. et al. 1987. Tree death as an ecological process. Bioscience 37: 550-556.
28. Hafley W. L. and Schreuder H. T. 1977. Statistical distributions for fitting diameter and height data in even-aged stands. Can. J. For. Res. 7: 481-487.
29. Kanzaki M. and Yoda K. 1986. Regeneration in sub-alpine coniferous forests. 2. Mortality and the pattern of death of canopy trees. Bot. Mag. Tokyo 99: 37-51.
30. Kohyama T. et al. 2003. Tree species differentiation in growth, recruitment and allometry in relation to maximum height in a Bornean mixed dipterocarp forest. J. Ecol. 91: 797-806.
31. Lai J. S. et al. 2009. Species-habitat associations change in a subtropical forest of China. J. Veg. Sci. 20: 415-423.
32. Lin K. C. et al. 2003. Typhoon effects on litterfall in a subtropical forest. Can. J. For. Res. 33: 2184-2192.
33. Lin Y. C. et al. 2011. Point patterns of tree distribution determined by habitat heterogeneity and dispersal limitation. Oecologia 165: 175-184.
34. Little S. N. 1983. Weibull diameter distributions for mixed stands of western conifers. Can. J. For. Res. 13: 85-88.
35. Mabry C. M. et al. 1998. Typhoon disturbance and stand-level damage patterns at a subtropical forest in Taiwan. Biotropica 30: 238-250.
36. Maltamo M. et al. 1995. Comparison of beta-functions and Weibull functions for modelling basal area diameter distri bution in stands of Pinus sylvestris and Picea abies. Scand. J. For. Res. 10: 284-295.
37. Maltamo M. et al. 2000. Comparison of percentile based prediction methods and the Weibull distribution in describing the diameter distribution of heterogeneous Scots pine stands. For. Ecol. Manage. 133: 263-274.
38. Maritan A. et al. 1996. Scaling laws for river networks. Phys. Rev. E 53: 1510-1515.
39. Mesple F. et al. 1996. Evaluation of simple statistical criteria to qualify a simulation. Ecol. Modell. 88: 9-18.
40. Meyer H. A. 1952. Structure, growth, and drain in balanced uneven-aged forests. J. For. 50: 85-92.
41. Midgley J. J. 2001. Do mixed-species mixed-size indigenous forests also follow the self-thinning line? Trends Ecol. Evol. 16: 661-662.
42. Muller-Landau H. C. et al. 2006a. Testing metabolic ecology theory for allometric scaling of tree size, growth and mortality in tropical forests. Ecol. Lett. 9: 575-588.
43. Muller-Landau H. C. et al. 2006b. Comparing tropical forest tree size distributions with the predictions of metabolic ecology and equilibrium models. Ecol. Lett. 9: 589-602.
44. Nakajima T. et al. 2009. Risk assessment of wind disturbance in Japanese mountain forests. Ecoscience 16: 58-65.
45. Niklas K. J. et al. 2003. Tree size frequency distributions, plant density, age and community disturbance. Ecol. Lett. 6: 405-411.
46. Palahi M. et al. 2006. Modelling the diameter distribution of Pinus sylvestris, Pinus nigra and Pinus halepensis forest stands in Catalonia using the truncated Weibull function. Forestry 79: 553-562.
47. Price C. A. et al. 2007. A general model for allometric covariation in botanical form and function. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104: 13204-13209.
48. Reynolds J. H. and Ford E. D. 2005. Improving competition representation in theoretical models of self-thinning: a critical review. J. Ecol. 93: 362-372.
49. Russo S. E. et al. 2007. Growth-size scaling relationships of woody plant species differ from predictions of the metabolic ecology model. Ecol. Lett. 10: 889-901.
50. Russo S. E. et al. 2008. A re-analysis of growth-size scaling relationships of woody plant species. Ecol. Lett. 11: 311-312.
51. Simini F. et al. 2010. Self-similarity and scaling in forest communities. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107: 7658-7662.
52. Smith E. P. and Rose K. A. 1995. Model goodness-of-fit analysis using regression and related techniques. Ecol. Modell. 77: 49-64.
53. Stark S. C. et al. 2011. Response to Coomes and Allen (2009) 'Testing the metabolic scaling theory of tree growth'. J. Ecol. 99: 741-747.
54. Stephenson N. L. et al. 2011. Causes and implications of the correlation between forest productivity and tree mortality rates. Ecol. Monogr. 81: 527-555.
55. Strigul N. et al. 2008. Scaling from trees to forests: tractable macroscopic equations for forest dynamics. Ecol. Monogr. 78: 523-545.
56. Wang X. G. et al. 2009. Tree size distributions in an old-growth temperate forest. Oikos 118: 25-36.
57. Wells A. et al. 2001. Forest dynamics in Westland, New Zealand: the importance of large, infrequent earthquake-induced disturbance. J. Ecol. 89: 1006-1018.
58. White E. P. et al. 2008. On estimating the exponent of power- law frequency distributions. Ecology 89: 905-912.
59. Woods K. D. 2004. Intermediate disturbance in a late- successional hemlock-northern hardwood forest. J. Ecol. 92: 464-476.
60. Yen T. M. et al. 2010. Estimating biomass production and carbon storage for a fast-growing makino bamboo (Phyllostachys makinoi) plant based on the diameter distribution model. For. Ecol. Manage. 260: 339-344.
61. Yoda K. et al. 1963. Self-thinning in overcrowded pure stands under cultivated and natural conditions. J. Biol. Osaka City Univ. 14: 107-129.
62. Zutter B. R. et al. 1986. Characterizing diameter distributions with modified data-types and forms of the Weibull distribution. For. Sci. 32: 37-48.